On a blustery winter afternoon the yellow windows of the Bradford East constituency office of David Ward MP are the brightest thing for miles. Inside things are shabby, busy, purposeful.

A constituent, who drops by to discuss immigration issues, is greeted warmly. I get a far warier reception, which is entirely understandable. Ever since Ward attended a Holocaust Memorial ceremony in Bradford, and, on returning, published a blogpost that said: "Having visited Auschwitz twice – once with my family and once with local schools – I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza, he has been the subject of outraged condemnations.

"These comments are sickening and unacceptable and have no place in British politics," said Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust. There have been furious editorials in the national press, the obligatory Twitter-storm: "My Jewish husband is worth a thousand of you, @DavidWardMP," wrote Louise Mensch (which, to be fair, does not count as an edifying contribution to an already pretty unedifying debate.)

Ward was initially defiant – it was "just a statement of fact", he told Sky News. Did he not see that he was accusing all Jews, rather than the Israeli state, of mistreating Palestinians? "I'm accusing the Jews who did it, so if you're a Jew and you did not do it I'm not accusing you. I'm saying that those Jews who did that and continue to do it have not learned those lessons." But then he apologized.

"I never for a moment intended to criticise or offend the Jewish people as a whole, either as a race or as a people of faith, and apologise sincerely for the unintended offence which my words caused … [however] I will continue to make criticisms of actions in Palestine in the strongest possible terms for as long as Israel continues to oppress the Palestinian people."

He was officially censured by his party. "I would be grateful if you would confirm the undertaking that you gave to me in our meeting that you will not again use the phrase 'the Jews' in this context," wrote Alistair Carmichael, chief whip. "I confirm," replied Ward, "that I am prepared to give you the undertaking that you asked for in our meeting."

And yet at the same time he seems not oblivious, but uncomprehending and seemingly uninterested in comprehending why it is that he has upset people. "I've got one of the most deprived constituencies in the country," he says. "And I've got a really full job on here. I care passionately about it, and I am totally dedicated, to making lives better, if I can, for people in the constituency. The world out there – in terms of what's on national TV and in the national press, is actually pretty … secondary to me." All the more reason to be careful about speaking out about international affairs, surely?

Ward was born in Lincoln. His father was a plumber, while his mother worked on farms, then in a canning factory, then in a care home. He became an MP in 2010, on his fifth attempt, with a majority of only 365. Within three months of his election he had voted against his party, saying no to the Academies bill; as a councillor, for 26 years, his specialist area was education, and for 30 years he was a governor at various special, primary and secondary schools. A small man with dramatic colouring but rumpled, beaten-down, somehow, with a striking air of exhaustion and sadness, Ward has been in the trenches a long time, and I believe him when he says how much he cares. He is also, I suspect, used to being a powerful figure in a smaller, very different world than Westminster, to taking himself and his opinions very seriously, to not being required to finesse or defend or question them that much.

His family, and his constituents, have been reading the news, however. "People have been coming up to me and saying, 'Oh, are you all right?' and I've been, 'What do you mean?' Even my family have been coming up to me and saying, 'How are you?'" He prefers to take comfort from the nearly 4,000 emails, calls and letters that have come into the office, most, he claims, supporting him ("Though there are some who go on to say, 'of course, the Holocaust never happened,' and we are writing back to them to say, 'you idiot.'")

Was he surprised when the chief whip got in touch? "There is a huge operation out there, a machine almost, which is designed to protect the state of Israel from criticism. And that comes into play very, very quickly and focuses intensely on anyone who's seen to criticise the state of Israel. And so I end up looking at what happened to me, whether I should use this word, whether I should use that word – and that is winning, for them. Because what I want to talk about is the fundamental question of how can they do this, and how can they be allowed to do this."

'What we all want to do is to find a peaceful solution to the Palestinian issue, and to ensure that we can fairly and openly criticise each side when they do things which are wrong. Without being criticised for being racist. How do we do that?'

Ward is a member of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group; he has made two trips to Israel and the West Bank, where he was obviously deeply affected by what he saw, and his opposition to the settlements and the Occupation was solidified. There is something admirable as well as foolish about the tenacity with which he insists on keeping his head above the parapet. Does he not see that to link the Holocaust and the Occupation is, among other things, a total category error? The Holocaust was genocide – an overt intention that the Jewish people should not exist. You might disagree with what the Israeli government does, but it is not setting out to annihilate a people.

"I don't mind being criticised for what I actually say. But I did not say that. I clearly did not write, 'I am appalled at the atrocities committed against the Jewish people in places like Auschwitz – and then in a short space of time the same thing was happening in the new state of Israel.' I did not say that! At all! Ever! Or imply it! What was comparable was the treatment of people by people. Because, don't forget, long before the death camps were set up, the treatment of the Jews in many of these European countries, and of course following 1933, in particular in Nazi Germany, was racist, and directed at the Jewish people. [It was] very low-level or what was regarded as low-level cases of nastiness and harassment to begin with, and then escalated. And when you look at – wherever it may be – the West Bank, and a declared intent by the Israeli Defence Forces to harass, often just annoy Palestinians – in terms of a checkpoint that will be only open on certain days, and then it will be open, but at a later time, and the next day it will open slightly earlier, so you get there and then it's been shut again ... really just to harass, in many cases to move the Palestinians from land, to just give up and move on ... "

I point out that if you say "the Jews" you are blaming millions of people, the majority of whom do not live in Israel, did not vote for Netanyahu, may entirely disagree with him even if they do live there – but he cannot seem to fathom, or accept this. "What I am absolutely convinced of, is that no form of words would have been acceptable. We would have been having this same conversation if I'd not used those words. It would simply have been on something else.

"I mean, somebody wrote to me and suggested that they're supportive of what I've said and it's great that people are raising these issues, but instead of 'atrocity' you should have used 'brutality'. So if I'd have used the word brutality, would I have got this criticism? Of course I would."

What has he learned from the experience? "I suppose [I'm] more determined to seek an answer to the question. I want to push through. Because what we all want to do is to find a peaceful solution to the Palestinian issue, and to ensure that we can fairly and openly criticise each side when they do things which are wrong. Without being criticised for being racist. How do we do that?"

Being careful who you are blaming for what would be a start. "Do you really believe that by using that term I was referring to every single Jew on the planet?" Ward is visibly angry now. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but on paper I think ... "Why are you thinking so hard? Why are you trying to make this so difficult? I'm clearly not referring to those I'm not referring to. I mean we refer to, 'Oh, you know what the Americans are like' [but we don't mean] every single American."

Leaving aside the fact that that is not a particularly advisable way to proceed either, yes, it is different. There's a history of persecution and racism that simply doesn't apply to the term American. "So what we're saying is that the term a Jew, or Jews, is a term of abuse." No, we are not. Sometimes, during this conversation, I feel that he is not engaging with me at all, but with the chief whip. "We refer to the Liberal democrats, day after day. You Liberal Democrats – what, every Liberal Democrat? Why is that different?" The analogy is clearly completely obtuse: parties are organised around explicit principles to which all members sign up, by choice. Which is one reason why, particularly if you are a party in power, you have to be very, very careful about how you use words, always. Especially when referring to situations – Israel, Northern Ireland – where so many words are loaded with decades of hurt and violence and blame.

"Yes, but what you're doing, in those situations, is that you are handing to people, you're handing to racists the right to determine what words mean. I refuse to allow the Nazis to tell me that that is a term of abuse."

Nine years ago Ward, who was a lecturer at Leeds Metropolitan University, was seconded to Bradford City Football Club in order to help it engage with its immediate community, which is largely Pakistani and Bangladeshi; he set up a centre that worked with anti-racist groups. Surely he, of all people, knows the freight words carry, and the importance of being careful, and specific. "The solid ground I stand on is that I am not a racist," he says. Later he adds: "If I'm not racist – and I don't think I am, and this is where the apology came in – that doesn't mean I won't make comments that can be interpreted as being racist. But it gives me confidence to say that when I say words it isn't with intention of offending." Unfortunately for him, merely being convinced of something doesn't necessarily make it true.

Was he disappointed with his party for censuring him? It's quite a slap on the wrist. It's also the case that free speech is central to Liberal Democrat belief. "I'm really not important in this. I think some of the questions I've asked are important. I'm – I'm all right."